Eliminating an insect that has been here for millions of years, part of the food chain, helping thousands of micro-organism to mix DNA and be exposed to various conditions, thus helping evolution... That won't cause a major issue ? Sure ? 100% Safe ? You swear ? No backies in case of totally destroying our environment like we always do ? We are such an arrogant specie.
This technology can't eliminate mosquitoes. It's literally just birth control. Some mosquitoes still mate with otherwise normal males and continue to produce offspring.
Something like 30 out of the 500 anopheles species are capable of carrying malaria. Only 2 of those 30 bite humans: A. gambiae and A. funestus . Eradicating those two would be sufficient and another species, one that doesn't bite humans, would take over the rest of their niche. "Bites humans" is not a sufficiently beneficial adaptation to be a game-changer. We can eliminate that trait and precisely that trait with su…
It's fine being careful but this argument devolves all too often into some kind of religious nature worship. We are the dominant species on this planet. Animals and plant life - nature - have to conform to our wishes. Not the other way around.
I agree, more or less, but I believe that the "We can't possibly predict the effects of this therefore we can't take the risk" argument demands more urgent opposition. I argue that we can predict the effects. They're tiny even in absolute terms, and the uncertainty is well-understood and also small. And in relative terms - These small risks and effects are weighed against a half-million lives per year. I'd be willing to release kudzu or rabbits to save that many lives; eliminating mosquitoes has such insignificant risk relative to its benefit that that risk doesn't even register. Do it now.
This sounds like one of those headlines that shows up before one of those movies like 28-days later. I'm all for trying to fight disease but how deeply do we actually understand what we're trying to solve. How do we know that we actually aren't going to make things worse down the road?
Something like 30 out of the 500 anopheles species are capable of carrying malaria. Only 2 of those 30 bite humans: A. gambiae and A. funestus . Eradicating those two would be sufficient and another species, one that doesn't bite humans, would take over the rest of their niche. "Bites humans" is not a sufficiently beneficial adaptation to be a game-changer. We can eliminate that trait and precisely that trait with su…
I am also wondering how mosquito populations are affected by increasing human populations. I can imagine with a lot of left out garbage collecting standing water plus being a food source could have given mosquitoes a unnatural advantage.
http://www.who.int/whr/1996/media_centre/executive_summary1/... Mosquitoes are responsible for millions of deaths every year, and hundreds of millions of infections often with severe disability. We understand stuff pretty deeply now. According to https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html eliminating mosquitoes would not cause major ecological issues. So when you have millions of people dying every yea…
How many planets do we have? By my count it's one. What's our track record on changing ecosystems to fix problems without creating worse problems? Zero out of how many? I hate mosquito too, and they are probably useless, but no good engineer makes changes without a backup and a tested rollback strategy, where's our backup?
When’s the last time anyone died of smallpox? As a species, we seem demonstrably better off for having arrogantly removed it from the planet.
http://www.who.int/whr/1996/media_centre/executive_summary1/... Mosquitoes are responsible for millions of deaths every year, and hundreds of millions of infections often with severe disability. We understand stuff pretty deeply now. According to https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html eliminating mosquitoes would not cause major ecological issues. So when you have millions of people dying every yea…
How many planets do we have? By my count it's one. What's our track record on changing ecosystems to fix problems without creating worse problems? Zero out of how many? I hate mosquito too, and they are probably useless, but no good engineer makes changes without a backup and a tested rollback strategy, where's our backup?
Smallpox was made extinct (aside from samples in labs) and as far a I know there haven't been any problems from that.
I am just wondering, are we about to discover what other insects etc. are being influenced by this decision, possibly with negative effects on a large scale? Makes me think of the four pests campaign. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
Except this proposal is widely accepted in the scientific community with hundreds of ecological studies behind it, where as the Four Pests was just speculation by a guy who likely never studied any modern biology.
This is kind of like neutering/spaying feral cats, and returning them to where they were found. They stop breeding, but continue to compete with others for resources.
> This is kind of like neutering/spaying feral cats, and returning them to where they were found. They stop breeding, but continue to compete with others for resources.
What resources are mosquitoes competing for in the environment?
How many planets do we have? By my count it's one. What's our track record on changing ecosystems to fix problems without creating worse problems? Zero out of how many? I hate mosquito too, and they are probably useless, but no good engineer makes changes without a backup and a tested rollback strategy, where's our backup?
Not zero. Here are some changes we've made that affected the living things around us, but they were worth the risk 1 Indoor plumbing 2 elimination of wolves and other predators around us 3 elimination of lice and rats from our bodies and homes 4 vaccination
Eliminating wolves contributed to higher deer populations and an increase in the number of deer ticks that spread Lyme disease to humans. Intensive forestry operations also help to increase deer populations as they like the more open spaces that result from clear-cuts.
http://www.who.int/whr/1996/media_centre/executive_summary1/... Mosquitoes are responsible for millions of deaths every year, and hundreds of millions of infections often with severe disability. We understand stuff pretty deeply now. According to https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html eliminating mosquitoes would not cause major ecological issues. So when you have millions of people dying every yea…
How many planets do we have? By my count it's one. What's our track record on changing ecosystems to fix problems without creating worse problems? Zero out of how many? I hate mosquito too, and they are probably useless, but no good engineer makes changes without a backup and a tested rollback strategy, where's our backup?
I think "zero" is being a bit uncharitable. What about plant and animal reintroduction programmes? What about culling invasive species? Use of firebreaks? Eradicating disease? Did you have any incidents in mind when saying active management results in worse problems?
How many planets do we have? By my count it's one. What's our track record on changing ecosystems to fix problems without creating worse problems? Zero out of how many? I hate mosquito too, and they are probably useless, but no good engineer makes changes without a backup and a tested rollback strategy, where's our backup?
Smallpox was made extinct (aside from samples in labs) and as far a I know there haven't been any problems from that.
Sure, but the only possible side affect of eliminating smallpox was increased population growth. Different than introducing an organism who's evolution we don't control into the wild.